123 comments:

Bram
said...

The Tea Party began and ended with GOVERNMENT SPENDING. Nothing else.

I know you liberals like to pretend that the Tea Party is the boogie-man for everything you hate. It is all a smoke-screen to hide out-of-control spending and Senate Democrats' unwillingness to even consider a budget.

Republicans are not about to ‘return to reality.’ If they did, they would be supporting the Tea Party.

The only group that is in ‘la la land’ is the fascist democrats and the statist republicans—in other words, our ruling elite.

What can’t continue—won’t. We are on a spending binge that will only become worse as the deficits grow.

The democrats (and Jim’s) only strategy is to demean and denigrate the rational groups who wish to make a constructive response to our impending disaster.

So Jim continues to cite leftist assholes, with leftist agendas. He gives no reasonable solutions-just denigrate, demean, smear, and sneer. He will continue to support the Obama administration—the most corrupt administration in modern American history. Good luck with that Jim.

Malarkey:I'd say that there is little disagreement that Sarah Palin was and remains a good cheerleader/vote getter, but a poor TV commentator.The fact that the left reacts to Sarah with such boiling spittle punctuated hatred proves to me that she remains (by example) a genuine threat to Marxocrat religion's tenants.I contend that the foremost issues to T Party conservatives have always been economics and national security, in that order. The other issues have always been secondary.I doubt that there is any conservative who is unwilling to compromise. It all depends upon trading what for what. The Messiah and His Disciples have demonstrated again and again that it is THEY who are unwilling to actually compromise.For example, I for one would be willing to trade a lot for (a) Genuinely securing our borders and (b) Changing the national immigration policy from bringing in the dregs of the third world to barring the dregs and welcoming the productive from everywhere.I will bet the farm that there are many very, very desirable people from the Socialist/Communist/Marxist countries of both the first, second and third worlds who would love to come here and have a lot to bring with them, in stark contrast to the immigrants the left favors.

Please oh please, Crab, nominate the Wasilla Mayor who jacked up the city's debt, went on to become the Alaskan Governor who raised taxes, taxed oil companies, raised the Socialist Alaska Permanent Fund payouts, then quit half way through the job because she couldn't take the pressure, then went on to fail as a VEEP nominee, as your gop Presidential nominee in 2016.

reliably blathers bilge:I keep saying that Palin is a good cheerleader/fundraiser/vote getter, and she is.It take a hell of a lot of gall for anyone who supports Comrade Hussein and his Commissars, text book examples of people unqualified for any public office for reasons of both incompetence and character flaws, to throw stones.

Good God, rbb, if she did all those things you said, you'd be the first to line up to vote for her. She would have had you at "raising taxes."

And I do love all the fringe talk from the modern democrats. Do I have to say it on here every week: Obama was rated farther to left as a senator than Bernie Sanders, self-avowed socialist. And JFK would be drummed out of the modern-socialist-democrat party as a TEA party confederate. Lowered taxes and said ask not what you can do for your country....that's fucking blasphemy to the current set of leftist comrades that run the democrats.

...Palin also increased the budget by spending on roads and sewers, left the town nearly $20 million in debt and raised the city sales tax by half a percent (she said the money was needed to support construction of an indoor ice rink and sports complex and a police dispatch center).

...One of her signature accomplishments as governor was a $1.5 billion tax increase on oil production, infuriating oil companies, according to The New York Times. She accused oil companies of bribing legislators to keep taxes low and, soon after, passed a $1,200 “energy rebate” to each Alaskan from the state’s budget surplus.

http://www.cato.org/blog/gov-sarah-palins-record-taxes-spending

...Over the opposition of oil companies, Republican Gov. Sarah Palin and Alaska's Legislature last year approved a major increase in taxes on the oil industry — a step that has generated stunning new wealth for the state as oil prices soared.

Not too quick are you, dumbass. Knowing that Palin raised all those taxes I figured would get you all warm and fuzzy. Plus, she raised taxes on the dreaded Big Oil, so I knew you'd be pissing your pants waiting to vote for her, she sounds like a leftist's wet-dream. You're so stupid you can't even tell when somebody is making fun of your dumb ass.

The tea party is done because Dana Milbank, media clown, says so? I don't think so. The Tea Party is a grassroots movement of Americans fed up with the tax and spend mentality. It isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

It amazes me to read what ignoramuses believe they know about Sarah Palin. Here in Alaska, we have strong views of her, many of them negative. But to see what you leftist assholes have to say about her is hilarious. You are hypocrites: She challenged the entrenched, corrupt GOP establishment and won. She took on big oil, one of the big corrupters of politics in this state, and won. She defeated a sitting GOP governor with ease. All the things that the left normally celebrates, and you hate her for it.You leftist assholes would have nothing to say if you couldn’t attack, smear, denigrate and demean.

Palin is strong, accomplished, plain spoken, willing to take the unpopular stand and actions if she thinks they are the right ones, and is an example of courage and doing the hard things. All stuff Obama is not. And the left go utterly bat shit insane about it. Would be quite a show, if not so dangerous to the nation.

There comes a time for strategic withdrawal. The Alsakan democrats had lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit lined up to derail her successful agenda. And the Alaskan judiciary let them come at her one by one. She had to fork out the money to defend herself, and only when the lawsuit was defeated would the state take up the cost. Free, have you never seen a person leave a position under such heavy fire that staying was not worth the risk? Remember, she is a woman whose success did not depend from the state's helping hand. She put the lie to everything the statist leftists stand for. They could not let that stand, and were willing to destroy state governance in order to destroy her. She took the smart way and removed the high value target from the hate spewing assholes. Not that those very same p.o.s. and their allies will stop attacking her, but now they cannot destroy the state to do so.

I dont think the Alaska governorship is the damn battle of the bulge. She let down the people who voted for her. When bc the going got tough, she bugged out. She could have been something, but right there she burned it and now her 15 minutes are greatfully over.

This story and other similar accounts have me asking WHAT OTHER STUPID THINGS the educators (that we all pay) are doing.It puts me into the camp that says the whole school system needs a thorough house cleaning, involving lots of firings and major defunding. The very first target should be eliminating the Federal Department of Education and concurrently nullifying all its regulations.Even worse, I have often read that the quality of the school output has steadily declined since the 1960s. I guess it is a matter that if everyone is entitled to a diploma, the curriculum has to be dumbed down enough for everyone to pass.

Zelda:I have said that I now favor the question to be settled by each state for each state.I think that the legalization of marijuana is horrible public policy because nobody has come up with ANY benefit to balance the risk of such an experiment.However, people have been and will continue to quack about legalizing pot. Perhaps the time has come to find out for sure if it is a good idea or a bad idea and thereby end the argument.I adamantly oppose the Federal Government making marijuana legal in ALL states.I just as adamantly oppose the rest of the states having to carry the water for the ones who do follow this particular piper.

Did you read the article, Crab? All those Dems were saying was that the federal government should stop enforcing federal law and just leave it up to the states. That's all. But now they get the credit. And the Republicans actually had a chance on this one because of Obama's persecution of legal pot growers.

Zelda:I did read the article. It was not clear to me whether or not the idea was to legalize marijuana nationally.I don't think that legalization appeals to as many as you think. I don't think the legalization issue will serve as a fig leaf for the Conservative's opposing abortions. I stand by my position that the bigest looser for the Conservatives is their anti- abortion stance.

The policy is to have the federal government stop enforcing federal marijuana laws, effectively leaving it up to the states. The political spin is FREEDOM (and tax revenue), BABY!!!

I think legalization appeals to exactly the demographic with whom the Republicans need to improve their numbers. The Republican brand is so toxic to them right now it will take something slightly radical to get their attention and not dismiss them overbearing control freaks. Abortion hurts them with that demographic, but opposing abortion will lose them their base of social cons. The only way to mitigate the abortion stance is to support pot in some meaningful way.

Zelda:I agree that dumping the anti-abortion stance will lose some votes. It is a matter of gaining more votes than it would lose.I have no confidence that those who see Republicans as "overbearing control freaks" would support most conservative issues anyway. I think that the most conservatives would ever get is a flash in the pan of support that would quickly go away.I still think that the optimal compromise is the marijuana and abortion questions being settled by each state for each state. That would leave a path for people on either side of both issues to support the NATIONAL platform of rational economic and national security policies and a smaller government generally.I think the end result would be that the most liberal states will legalize both abortion and marijuana, and the most conservative states will ban both. I’m certain there will be states where one is legal and the other is not.The benefits would be decoupling both social issues from the national dialogue, and minimizing the divisiveness that comes of people feeling that they have had something forced on them. I think that this would be far more advantageous to the conservatives than to the leftards. I think the wisdom of prohibiting or permitting, as the cases may be, would soon become apparent, and the damage from the bad decisions would be limited to a few states rather than the whole country.

These days there are sophisticated and superior quality make up available in the market but selection should always be made according to the skin requirements [url=http://www.2013thomassaboonline.co.uk/]thomas sabo[/url] Last but not the least thing will surely enhance the beauty of a person is his/her shoe wear [url=http://www.tiffanyjewelryonlineoutlet.com/]tiffany outlet store[/url] Handbags wholesalers would give you many options and also help you select a bag but it is you who have to decide which one to choose [url=http://www.louboutinshoes2013sale.co.uk/]christian louboutin[/url] Older women still want to have at least one hot looking dark-colored couple, that's an excellent mix of clear and delicate [url=http://www.2013tomsshoes-outlet.com/]toms outlet[/url] Price very competitive in comparison to boutiques and department stores [url=http://www.2013tomsshoes-outlet.net/]cheap toms[/url]

I agree that dumping the anti-abortion stance will lose some votes. It is a matter of gaining more votes than it would lose.

It's a net loss. Losing it strikes at the heart of the GOP base. It would be like the Democrats cutting food stamps.

I have no confidence that those who see Republicans as "overbearing control freaks" would support most conservative issues anyway.

The Republicans have as good a shot now as they ever will. It's a reasonable argument that a party that wants to control what food you eat won't relinquish federal control of marijuana.

If you want a rational federal approach to the economy and national security, you have to make it all about freedom. It's the winning political argument, but ironically, most politicians are raging control freaks and can't bring themselves to support it.

Zelda:I'm not at all convinced that the anti-abortion zealots are really "the heart" if by that you mean a majority.I am reminded of a conversation I overheard at work years ago. One of the women was telling another that she did not like the idea of abortions, but nevertheless wanted her daughters have that option available. I think that attitude has always been pretty wide spread.I have been unaware that the Republicans want to control what food we eat. Did you mean the Democraps, the party from which we are trying to wrest control?

I have been unaware that the Republicans want to control what food we eat. Did you mean the Democraps, the party from which we are trying to wrest control?

I was talking about the Democrats being control freaks and how Republicans need to point that out. They're getting undeserved credit for promoting personal freedom on the marijuana issue when they're exactly the opposite.

I'd say that "are raging control freaks and can't bring themselves to support it." is the most descriptive of the anti abortion crowd.

Yeah, the social conservatives are not unlike the Progressives in their desire to see the government implement their social agenda. But they'll compromise on anything except abortion. And a clever Republican politician can dilute the control-freaky vibe of abortion issue by doing exactly what those Democrat reps did.

But they'll compromise on anything except abortion. is why I keep saying that if they lose more votes than they bring to the table (which I think the case), the issue needs to be side stepped (by leaving it to the states) so that we can be unified and address the issues upon which our national survival actually depends. I say the great majority doesn't think that abortion is such an issue.

Abortion is a big issue for the Republican base. When the Republican base doesn't vote, it's because they're standing firm on principle. Social cons are notorious for standing on principle and not voting. They're why we still have Obama. It's not the libertarians.

"They're why we still have Obama."How far do they think the anti-abortion agenda will get with Obama (or his clone) running the country?Your statement supports the conclusion that the anti-abortion crowd consists mostly of irrational wackos.If you are indeed correct, there is never going to be a national coalition that stands for rational economic and national security policies in charge unless they win without the anti-abortion zealots. They will continue to loose with them.

They're not irrational. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have any interest putting any restrictions on abortion. And when that's their issue, there is no reason for them to vote. And they won't. And Democrats will win in far bigger numbers. The Republicans have to at least pretend they are giving them a choice.

To me, it remains a matter of taking whatever side of the abortion issue that gets the most votes, and I will bet that the anti abortion stance cost us more votes than it brings to the table. The abortion issue is not crucial to our national survival as the economic and national security issues most certainly are.I don't think that a national ban of abortion has any chance at all of being enacted, although a few states probably would do so. Hence, I say that the issue would be the least troublesome if left to the states.As far as I am concerned, those to whom abortion is THE issue are the conservative equivalent of the left's low information voters.

It doesn't cost votes unless the press/Democrats can paint the candidate as anti-woman instead of pro-life. They've gotten pretty good at it too. But try to remember that in spite of all the manufactured outrage and pandering to women, Obama still lost 6 million votes this time as opposed to last time. I know more pro-lifers who stayed home than libertarians and I know quite a few of each.

Surely you don't think that the majority of that six million voted against Comrad Hussain because they suddenly saw the light over the abortion issue. I think most agree that the national security and economic issues had much, much more to do with it.